4 ms·

>If a debacle on this scale is surprising today... I used to think of American passenger train travel as this romantic affair until being similarly stranded in

>If a debacle on this scale is surprising today... I used to think of American passenger train travel as this romantic affair until being similarly stranded in an Amtrak the Cascade's for 24 hours with no cell or heat back in 2019 (thankfully no carbon monoxide poisoning either.)[1] Now I say leave the rails to freight. 500tmpg is a pretty good multiple over sending things via truck and about 14x more efficient than sending the same weight in passengers. Despite common ignorance, our freight rail is the best in the world. [1] https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2019/02/amtrak-train-stranded-near-eugene-since-sunday-after-hitting-tree-on-tracks.html https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2019/02/am...

colonelspace 2y ago
If I could travel by train domestically in the USA as is common in Europe, I would prefer it. It's a real shame that the USA has yet to develop decent passenger trains.
- cheeze 2y ago
  Seriously. EU rail is great! Show up 15 minutes before my train leaves, sit on my phone (albeit often without reception) and pass the time sitting at a comfy table. I took a first class trip in Italy recently. Food was fine and it's Italy, but those seats were very comfortable!
- vkou 2y ago
  Likewise, it's a real shame that Europe has yet to develop cheap cargo trains. Perhaps both regions should look into doubling their rail networks.
  - gambiting 2y ago
    Where in Europe doesn't have cheap cargo trains? I used to live next to a train line in Poland and the cargo trains never stop going, there's so much cargo being moved by rail that the lines are almost always at capacity.
    - TMWNN 2y ago
      vkou is correct. The US freight rail system is the best and cheapest in the world, and has a larger share of freight shipping than in other countries. <https://archive.is/20240502094047/https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-railroading https://archive.is/20240502094047/https://www.economist.com/...>
    - vkou 2y ago
      Measured in mile-tonnes, ~40% of US cargo travels by rail. Meanwhile, only ~20% of EU cargo travels by rail. The US prioritizes freight on its rail network, the EU prioritizes passenger service.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        This is disingenous. There is no "rail network" about which the US (through some political process) makes decisions about prioritization. There is a freight rail network, and there is Amtrak's rails between Boston and DC. That's it. We're not prioritizing freight, the network is owned by freight companies. Also, with regards to percentages, this is the wrong comparison. The numbers you need (which I could not find) are what percentage of cargo travels to within Nkm of its destination by trail in the USA, where N is the typical value for Europe. We have substantial freight hauling in the US because of long distance journeys. The last Nkm is generally done by truck. In Europe, there is much less long distance freight hauling, and much more hauling that takes place under the Nkm "limit", ergo more is done by truck.
        gaadd33 2y ago
        Although under the law that created Amtrak, the track owners are supposed to give priority to passenger trains. I don't think that's been enforced for 30+ years (maybe ever) so freight is prioritized since it makes the owners more money.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        That's fair enough, but that leaves a certain level of ambiguity (or perhaps ambivalence) about what is prioritized by government. What we can say is that the track owners' priorities are clear. The Biden administration did begin to take steps to enforce the law in this area, but I think it did not get very far and will almost certainly cease in the new administration.
- Izikiel43 2y ago
  The question is, where? Most of the midwest is empty, same with other states. You have very dense areas in the east coast, which already leverage a large train network. In the west coast, Oregon and WA already have trains connecting their largest cities (Portland/Seattle/Vancouver). California has caltrain, and internal city trains. In the USA, for passengers, it makes much more sense to fly than trains, the infrastructure costs and time costs of trains vs planes don't make sense.
  - ocschwar 2y ago
    I'll put it this way: if it were easy and efficient to take a train from Chicago to Bloomington, Dubuque, Rockford, Ft. Wayne, every one of these places would make the effort to make it worthwhile to ride that train. Instead we just accept that all these places are effectively served by Chicago's OHare Airport, and there's no reason to travel among these places.
  - undersuit 2y ago
    The density is a function of our travel system. Putting dedicated passenger train routes into the US to connect the biggest cities would lead to the smaller cities along the routes receiving increased immigration. Every city has a road through it to do the same thing. >In the USA, for passengers, it makes much more sense to fly than trains You don't live in the midwest I take it. It makes more sense to drive than to take a flight that passes you through one of the airline hubs for most every trip that is less than 400 miles.
    - bongodongobob 2y ago
      So, most trips.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    "We have rail at home" Rail at home: > Boston to Buffalo: 11h32m
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    > Most of the midwest is empty, same with other states. Most of the Midwest has the same functional density as Europe. Indeed, if you overlay a map of France on the Midwest, with Paris centered on Chicago, you'll find that there are cities of comparable sizes at comparable distances. The Great Empty largely exists only on the plains and the mountainous west, where all but the most ardent fantasists concede that no passenger system is viable. But most of the population in the US lives in or near a city that would have viable high-speed rail destinations!
- miki123211 2y ago
  >common in Europe European rail travel is mostly small-town-to-city (for commuting) and city-to-city, mostly when the cities aren't that far apart (a few hours at most). International travel in Europe is much less common than interstate travel in the US, mostly because of the language and culture barriers, so most trips people take are in the same country. Our countries are far smaller, and the major cities of each country are far close to each other than the major cities in the US, so trains make sense. Trains in Europe mostly replace cars, NOT planes. It's just that a lot more travel here can be done by car/train in a reasonable time. To an average European, SFO to LAX by train would be just about bearable, depending on country and train speed. Anything much farther than that would probably be a flight.
  - fy20 2y ago
    A bit more context: Very few people in Europe travel internationally by train. If you need to go fast you go by air, or if you need to go cheap you go by bus. Train travel works well within some countries (a decade ago, I took a train from Rome to Venice and back for a 1 day conference - driving would have been around 6 hours each way), but for international travel it's usually not worth it. You are also dealing with different ticketing and scheduling systems, not to mention theres a bunch of big mountains in the middle of Europe meaning it's geographically hard to cross.
    - leoedin 2y ago
      I live in London and work for a French company. I’m travelling to Brussels and Paris fairly regularly. Many of my colleagues do the same. It’s a 2 hour high speed train. Far better than flying. Europe is a large place, but my experience in Western Europe is that people absolutely travel by inter-city train between countries when the journey time is 3 hours. More than that and flying starts to be favoured. Driving isn’t really an option for these journeys because the trains are so much faster than cars. A 2 hour train journey would take 4+ hours by car.
      - nmeofthestate 2y ago
        A similar distance to NY-to-DC (which would be half an hour slower on the train according to Google).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

colonelspace 2y ago

If I could travel by train domestically in the USA as is common in Europe, I would prefer it. It's a real shame that the USA has yet to develop decent passenger trains.

cheeze 2y ago
Seriously. EU rail is great! Show up 15 minutes before my train leaves, sit on my phone (albeit often without reception) and pass the time sitting at a comfy table. I took a first class trip in Italy recently. Food was fine and it's Italy, but those seats were very comfortable!
vkou 2y ago
Likewise, it's a real shame that Europe has yet to develop cheap cargo trains. Perhaps both regions should look into doubling their rail networks.
- gambiting 2y ago
  Where in Europe doesn't have cheap cargo trains? I used to live next to a train line in Poland and the cargo trains never stop going, there's so much cargo being moved by rail that the lines are almost always at capacity.
  - TMWNN 2y ago
    vkou is correct. The US freight rail system is the best and cheapest in the world, and has a larger share of freight shipping than in other countries. <https://archive.is/20240502094047/https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-railroading https://archive.is/20240502094047/https://www.economist.com/...>
  - vkou 2y ago
    Measured in mile-tonnes, ~40% of US cargo travels by rail. Meanwhile, only ~20% of EU cargo travels by rail. The US prioritizes freight on its rail network, the EU prioritizes passenger service.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      This is disingenous. There is no "rail network" about which the US (through some political process) makes decisions about prioritization. There is a freight rail network, and there is Amtrak's rails between Boston and DC. That's it. We're not prioritizing freight, the network is owned by freight companies. Also, with regards to percentages, this is the wrong comparison. The numbers you need (which I could not find) are what percentage of cargo travels to within Nkm of its destination by trail in the USA, where N is the typical value for Europe. We have substantial freight hauling in the US because of long distance journeys. The last Nkm is generally done by truck. In Europe, there is much less long distance freight hauling, and much more hauling that takes place under the Nkm "limit", ergo more is done by truck.
      - gaadd33 2y ago
        Although under the law that created Amtrak, the track owners are supposed to give priority to passenger trains. I don't think that's been enforced for 30+ years (maybe ever) so freight is prioritized since it makes the owners more money.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        That's fair enough, but that leaves a certain level of ambiguity (or perhaps ambivalence) about what is prioritized by government. What we can say is that the track owners' priorities are clear. The Biden administration did begin to take steps to enforce the law in this area, but I think it did not get very far and will almost certainly cease in the new administration.
Izikiel43 2y ago
The question is, where? Most of the midwest is empty, same with other states. You have very dense areas in the east coast, which already leverage a large train network. In the west coast, Oregon and WA already have trains connecting their largest cities (Portland/Seattle/Vancouver). California has caltrain, and internal city trains. In the USA, for passengers, it makes much more sense to fly than trains, the infrastructure costs and time costs of trains vs planes don't make sense.
- ocschwar 2y ago
  I'll put it this way: if it were easy and efficient to take a train from Chicago to Bloomington, Dubuque, Rockford, Ft. Wayne, every one of these places would make the effort to make it worthwhile to ride that train. Instead we just accept that all these places are effectively served by Chicago's OHare Airport, and there's no reason to travel among these places.
- undersuit 2y ago
  The density is a function of our travel system. Putting dedicated passenger train routes into the US to connect the biggest cities would lead to the smaller cities along the routes receiving increased immigration. Every city has a road through it to do the same thing. >In the USA, for passengers, it makes much more sense to fly than trains You don't live in the midwest I take it. It makes more sense to drive than to take a flight that passes you through one of the airline hubs for most every trip that is less than 400 miles.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    So, most trips.
- itishappy 2y ago
  "We have rail at home" Rail at home: > Boston to Buffalo: 11h32m
- jcranmer 2y ago
  > Most of the midwest is empty, same with other states. Most of the Midwest has the same functional density as Europe. Indeed, if you overlay a map of France on the Midwest, with Paris centered on Chicago, you'll find that there are cities of comparable sizes at comparable distances. The Great Empty largely exists only on the plains and the mountainous west, where all but the most ardent fantasists concede that no passenger system is viable. But most of the population in the US lives in or near a city that would have viable high-speed rail destinations!
miki123211 2y ago
>common in Europe European rail travel is mostly small-town-to-city (for commuting) and city-to-city, mostly when the cities aren't that far apart (a few hours at most). International travel in Europe is much less common than interstate travel in the US, mostly because of the language and culture barriers, so most trips people take are in the same country. Our countries are far smaller, and the major cities of each country are far close to each other than the major cities in the US, so trains make sense. Trains in Europe mostly replace cars, NOT planes. It's just that a lot more travel here can be done by car/train in a reasonable time. To an average European, SFO to LAX by train would be just about bearable, depending on country and train speed. Anything much farther than that would probably be a flight.
- fy20 2y ago
  A bit more context: Very few people in Europe travel internationally by train. If you need to go fast you go by air, or if you need to go cheap you go by bus. Train travel works well within some countries (a decade ago, I took a train from Rome to Venice and back for a 1 day conference - driving would have been around 6 hours each way), but for international travel it's usually not worth it. You are also dealing with different ticketing and scheduling systems, not to mention theres a bunch of big mountains in the middle of Europe meaning it's geographically hard to cross.
  - leoedin 2y ago
    I live in London and work for a French company. I’m travelling to Brussels and Paris fairly regularly. Many of my colleagues do the same. It’s a 2 hour high speed train. Far better than flying. Europe is a large place, but my experience in Western Europe is that people absolutely travel by inter-city train between countries when the journey time is 3 hours. More than that and flying starts to be favoured. Driving isn’t really an option for these journeys because the trains are so much faster than cars. A 2 hour train journey would take 4+ hours by car.
    - nmeofthestate 2y ago
      A similar distance to NY-to-DC (which would be half an hour slower on the train according to Google).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]